Yeah, it would demonstrate a unity of purpose. It would also demonstrate compliance with the law, you cretin.

But you see, this is a "remarkable international effort" and Barack Hussein Obama, our first post-American president, is a remarkable international kind of guy. I mean, he's got friends in Europe. He even hung out with the Queen of England and gave her an iPod, for heaven's sake, you non-arugula-havin' bitter clinger! And this mission is sanctioned by NATO, which is international, and therefore bigger and more important than Congress, which is merely national, just like being the junior senator from Illinois in Washington is bigger and more important than being the state senator from Hyde Park in Springfield.

Don't you people get it? It's all like a hierarchy of sovereignty: city, county, state, nation, NATO, UN.

(And most of the people who make up the media class feel this way too, hence the nonchalance about something that would have had them howling out of sheer partisan reflex had Obama's predecessor been doing the same thing.)

The War Powers Resolution is transparently unconstitutional, and most administrations since 1973 have been vocal on this point, but nevertheless every President has pursued Congressional authorization because the alternative is a Constitutional crisis.

First, B. Hussein Obama became influential in his community, and became part of the graft and corruption of slum lording as a community organizer, and his wife involved in using the University of Chicago med school to shuffle away patients that couldn't pay (a federal law violation).

Now, I could be wrong, but as I understand it, a community organizer pretty much wrests, intimidates, and bullies as much resource as possible from the legal government, for the benefit of those housing the poor (the slum lords). Adherence to the law is actually a weakness, for a community organizer, as I understand it. At least, President Obama doesn't seem to have a lot of practice working within the law or making the law work for him.

The second thought is that the long-held diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder afflicting our dear "Hope and Change" unicorn fart collector might have been accurate, but that the condition has progressed. I wonder if the President has trouble tracking reality, in a clinical, mental health sense. Forget the blood pressure, I want to see the mental health examine on the First Community Organizer.

How do you get that? Congress, as part of their exclusive power over the declaration of war, simply allowed 60 days for the President to get their approval for committing acts of war, to allow for the fact that getting nearly anything through the legislative process is slow.

The power to tell a President to stop making war is a necessary part of Congress's exclusive power to declare war.

Two tribal confederations. One in the east, backed by Al Quida and the Muslim Brotherhood, one in the west, led by Daffy Kadaffy. Both are, militarily, incompetent dickwits.

Gaddafi is hated by Al Quida and the Brotherhood (as well as the rest of the world). He also hates the 'Quidas and Brotherhood, and whacks them whenever he gets the chance.

The western tribes have the treasury, which buys suprisingly tough and loyal Tuareg mercenaries. Said Tuaregs bring along their black Harattin slaves to work in the oil fields, for peanuts.

The eastern tribes use that as an excuse to kill every black African they get their hands on, even if they aren't Harratin. Handily overlooked by our first African-American President, in order to look "tough" (pause for laughter).

Assholes (Western Tribes) who can deal with the west, vs. Assholes (Eastern Tribes) who will screw us given the chance, and finance anybody else who tries.

Huh. The eastern ones can't be complete idiots. They know they can't get money in any other way than selling us oil.

You expect for them to keep antagonizing their future customers?

Any data on Al-Qaeda backing? Why would local tribals invite disaster by trying to get assistance from an organisation that's almost universally hated by all advanced countries, eh? If all they need to do is kick out Qaddafi and then enjoy the oil money.. while it lasts.

In the long run, I'm more worried about the Moslem Brotherhood, which pretty much calls the shots in eastern Libya, as well as, increasingly, Egypt.

Libya is an artificial construct, compliments of the Europeans (mostly Italy), and has no real stability. It's tribal because that's the only loyalty any of them feel.

Egypt, if run by the brotherhood, would end up in de facto control of eastern Libya. Without Quaddafi, they end up with the whole show. One less player in the oil business, and less competition drives up prices.

Quaddafi would commonly load up French and Lebanese tankers that he knew were headed for Israel or to anybody with cash, and his selling under the table helped undercut OPEC's cartel, driving prices down.

The question isn't "Would the Brotherhood sell to us", It's "At what price would the Brotherhood sell to us".

The Saudis, Gulf States, and Russians have to factor in the damage higher prices would do to their massive investments in western businesses, which tempers their short term greed.

The very fundamentalist Brotherhood doesn't have any irons in that fire and is free to gouge all it wants to. In fact, to buy support among middle class Egyptians, it will have to.

Saudi oil production has peaked and will be declining over the next few years, and Russian extraction techniques are madly wastful. Libya will be an increasingly needed supplier to Europe. Run the numbers.

A lot of people are saying most Egyptians would want the brotherhood running the country. That'd be end to tourism, which is their only real source of hard currency.. so there is a vested interest in keeping them out of power.

Lanius, I like that "Aristocratic Republic" remark. I thought that was what our country was founded to be. Speaking of Aristocratic Republics, I'm beginning to think I would get more and better justice as a serf in the Domination of the Draka than I can expect as a supposed "free citizen" of the USA.

Draka has some good points, but is too much oriented on slavery and power.

My idea is, that people would have to earn the right to vote. Either by a decent amount of public service. Like military or police work, or working in enviromental control, doing engineering for public projects. All of these would entail monetary sacrifice and living frugally. Therefore people whose idea of a good life is to have lots of money and live in luxury would have a harder time.

Also, all laws would have to be approved by citizens. Legislators would only draft them, and explain various parts. People would have to approve the law, paragraph by paragprah, and no more legalese.

Some votes would be given for paying a lot of taxes, but they'd be logarithmic.. so for each additional vote, you'd need to pay exponentially more money.

But yeah. The whole idea is totally absurd and won't ever be put into practice-

Interesting about Stirling. When Mike Shepherd tried his female heroine -- Kris Longknife -- somewhere between Weber's Honor Harrington, and David Drake's Lt. Leary, he did pretty well. But he is fixated on the boobie bombs he came up with in the second book.

"...our first post-American president, is a remarkable international kind of guy. I mean, he's got friends in Europe. He even hung out with the Queen of England..."Notify us when Obama holds hands with - and dances with - the Saudi Prince, ala Bush.Just don't tell former German president Merkel when that happens...